I was privileged last week to speak to an auditorium full of Chapel Hill students on the issue of Christianity and textual criticism (the study of the ancient manuscripts that make up our Bible). My talk was a follow-up to the debate held there the night before by Daniel Wallace and Bart Ehrman. I wasn’t trying to bombard the students with more facts—the debate gave them many facts. My goal was to help them frame debates such as these in a faithful way and give them a helpful way to think about these issues.

My three points:
1. Uncertainty is not the same as doubt.
2. Ignorance is not the same as a conspiracy.
3. Secular is not the same as unbiased.

Surprisingly, point number two was the point about which I received the most questions and comments and had the most follow-up contact with students.

Ehrman and many New Testament scholars like him are fond of framing the issues of textual criticism and New Testament apologetics (historical reliability, manuscript evidence, etc.) as a conspiracy. Ehrman doesn’t usually speak in terms of a global conspiracy; it is not a conspiracy to fool the world. Rather it is a conspiracy to fool you that he’s interested in. As they make their case for all the “problems” with the New Testament, scholars like Ehrman continually ask the questions, “And why didn’t you know about all this? Why did your pastor and church hide all this from you? Why did you have to come all the way to UNC to find out the truth about the Bible?” The subtitle of one of Ehrman’s recent books is “Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know about Them)”. See? Everyone knew the Bible was full of contradictions and problems, but there was a conspiracy to hide that from you. Right?

There is a sense in which Ehrman is exactly right.

Here’s what I mean. Most Christian college students who grew up in traditional churches never heard any of this stuff. They never heard about how our New Testament was put together, never heard about ancient manuscripts, and never heard faithful scholars puzzling over the seeming contradictions in the Scripture and reconciling them in convincing and credible ways. And when these students found what looked to them like problems or contradictions in the Bible, they were told to “just have faith” by pastors and student pastors. Also, many college students who first began looking into Christianity in college asked their Christian friends about these issues and often found that they didn’t know anything helpful. It is a shameful reality, but most Christians, old and young, are woefully ignorant on most of these vitally important issues, and we propagate our ignorance to the next generation of believers. Those who are not ignorant, however, are the college professors who teach our students and introduce them to this aspect of biblical studies for the very first time. Radical skeptics like Ehrman get to frame the discussion, disclose the “facts”, and then ask, “Why do you think your pastor was hiding this from you?”

It’s a good question.

Many pastors and student ministers, it would seem, have adopted a two-fold stance on these critical issues. First, they shy away from dealing with critical and textual issues because they either don’t believe them important or because they themselves are ignorant of them, and second, when they do become aware of some of these textual problems, they are afraid that dealing with these issues in public, from the pulpit, will wreck the faith of their audience. Just recently I had a student pastor friend in another state tell me, “I can’t tell my students about the textual issues in John 8; it will wreck their faith in the Bible. They just need to trust God and believe his word.” So, rather than dealing with this issue candidly and allowing the students to watch their trained student pastor handle this difficulty in a credible and faithful way, they are better off just not knowing. In other words, ignorance is bliss. Last week I spoke to a room full of college students who were spiritually raised in just that way–ignorant of all the issues that are now shaking their faith.

This approach is a terrible one, and it doesn’t even work. The ignorance ship has sailed. The people in our congregations are watching the specials about Jesus on the History Channel and the Discovery Channel. They are reading blogs, listening to podcasts, reading New York Times best selling books like Forged, and going off to school at UNC. Skeptics like Ehrman are pop culture figures now, making the rounds on Good Morning America, the Daily Show, and the Colbert Report. And when the pastor stands in the pulpit to preach on John 8 and never mentions any of the text-critical issues with that passage, the congregation, all of whom are aware of the problem because they all have study Bibles with notes at that point, walk away not any better equipped to study their Bibles for themselves and handle these issues. They walk away thinking that it is their pastor who is ignorant.

The remedy to this state of affairs is easy to say and harder to do. The pastor, the student pastor, and anyone who teaches the Bible must also take on the role, however limited, of the apologist. Defending the Bible and dealing with critical issues should never eclipse the teaching of the Bible, but explaining to people how the Scripture was put together and modeling for them how to faithfully handle textual and critical difficulties is vitally important to the spiritual development of any Christian in the 21st century. Ignorance isn’t bliss. Ignorance is disheartening, and it is destructive. But it can be remedied with a little hard work on behalf of God’s church.

In the last installment, we defined theology as “disciplined reflection on God’s self-revelation, for the purposes of knowing and loving God, and participating in his mission in this world.” In future installments, we will talk about the audience of theology, the tools of theology, and the relationship of theology to other disciplines such as theology and philosophy. But first, I want to take a moment to speak about the relationship of theology to the four concepts mentioned above: Scripture and its grand narrative, as well as worship, obedience, and mission.[1] First, theology arises out of the biblical narrative. The Bible is composed of sixty six books with multiple genres, and is written by numerous authors in a diversity of historical and cultural contexts. However, this diversity is part of a beautiful unity which can be seen in the Bible’s overarching story. This story begins with God’s creation and humanity’s rebellion, and then proceeds with God’s unfolding plan of redemption. The biblical narrative is the true story of the whole world. Furthermore, it is dramatic in nature, inviting us into the story so that the story will shape our lives. Craig Bartholomew and Michael Goheen write, “[The biblical narrative] functions as the authoritative Word of God for us when it becomes the one basic story through which we understand our own experience and thought, and the foundation upon which we base our decisions and our actions.”[2] Finally, this narrative is un-substitutable: it should not be discarded in favor of alliterated moralisms, philosophical syllogisms, devotional truisms, or any other substitute.

Second, theology arises from and issues forth in worship and obedience. On the one hand, theology arises from worship as we seek to understand, conceptualize, and articulate the God whom we cherish. Likewise, theology arises from obedience; if we want to know and love God more truly, will allow ourselves to be conformed to the image of Christ, in order that we will be able to see him and hear him more clearly. On the other hand, theology issues forth in worship and obedience. Michael Horton writes, “When the doctrine is understood in the context of its dramatic narrative, we find ourselves dumbfounded by God’s grace in Jesus Christ, surrendering to doxology (praise). Far from masters, we are mastered; instead of seizing the truth, we are seized by it, captivated by God’s gift, to which we can only say, ‘Amen!’ and ‘Praise the Lord’.”[3] Without close attention to the biblical narrative and its attendant evangelical doctrine, our worship and obedience are at best unfocused and at worst idolatrous. However, when we consciously submit to the biblical narrative and its teaching, the flame of our worship and obedience is fueled by the oxygen of Word and Spirit.

Third, theology arises from, and issues forth in mission. The early church is a prime example. On the one hand their theology arose in the midst of their God-given mission. Paul’s epistles, for example, were written as he proclaimed the gospel, planted churches, and suffered for the sake of his faith. But on the other hand, their robust and powerful theology caused their mission to flourish.[4] This mutually beneficial relationship arises from the fact that God’s Triune nature is the foundation of mission and his Triune life provides the pattern for mission.[5] God is missional, therefore theology is missional. Mission is based upon God, therefore mission is theological.[6] The biblical narrative, from which Christian theology arises, is nothing if not a missional narrative.[7] Any theology that purports to be Christian but does not arise from mission and issue forth in mission is not a truly Christian theology at all.

[2] Craig G. Bartholomew and Michael W. Goheen, The Drama of Scripture: Finding Our Place in the Biblical Story (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 21.

[3] Horton, The Christian Faith, 22.

[4] See I. Howard Marshall, New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel (Downers Grove: IVP, 2004), 34-37, 717-726.  Marshall argues that mission is the core of the New Testament.

[5] For further reading on the Triune God as the foundation and pattern of mission, see Keith Whitfield, “The Triune God: The God of Mission,” in Theology and Practice of Mission, ed. Bruce Riley Ashford (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2011), 17-34.

[6] This is a central thread in Christopher Wright’s grand treatment of mission as a hermeneutical key for the biblical narrative. Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Downers Grove: IVP, 2006).

[7] For a brief exposition of the biblical narrative in relation to the concept of mission, see Bruce Riley Ashford, “The Story of Mission: The Grand Biblical Narrative,” in Theology and Practice of Mission, ed. Bruce Riley Ashford (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2011), 6-16.

What is theology? If we are going to reflect upon theology, we must first define it. There exist as many definitions of theology as there are theologians, and the various ways of defining it are not necessarily opposed to one another, but one way to put it is to say that it is “disciplined reflection on God’s self-revelation, for the purposes of knowing and loving God, and participating in his mission in this world.”[1] Theology is disciplined reflection on God’s self-revelation, because the God we know, love, and obey has revealed himself in times past through his mighty acts, through his prophets and apostles, and through the incarnation of his Son, and now reveals himself through his written Word (cf. Heb. 1:1-2). This written Word is the primary source upon which a theologian draws, and is the norm by which we measure any other theological source (e.g. church tradition).

Further, theology is done for the purpose of knowing and loving God, and participating in his mission in this world. The task of theology is cognitive, affective, and dispositional. It aims at the head, the heart, and the hands. J. L. Dagg writes, “The study of religious truth ought to be undertaken and prosecuted from a sense of duty, and with a view to the improvement of the heart. When learned, it ought not to be laid on the shelf, as an object of speculation; but it should be deposited deep in the heart, where its sanctifying power ought to be felt.”[2] Theology entails more than merely acquiring information about God; it entails affection for God and submission to God. When the theologian properly attends to the cognitive, affective, and dispositional dimensions of the task, he is able to glorify God’s name. Herman Bavinck writes, “… a theologian, a true theologian, is one who speaks out of God, through God, about God, and does this always to the glorification of His name.”[3] The task of theology, therefore, is to glorify God by knowing, loving, and serving him.

One of the things I’m really driving at here is the fact that theology should not be an ivory-tower enterprise. When it becomes disconnected from God’s church and her mission, and when it becomes an endeavor undertaken by isolated “intellectuals” who are not actively serving God and hischurch, it ceases to be a truly Christian theology. When Paul did theology, he did it in the midst of ministry and mission. And his theology furthered the ministry and mission. So there is a mutually beneficial relationship between Christian theology and Christian ministry. We will talk more about this in a later installment.

[2] J. L. Dagg, A Manual of Theology (Harrisonburg, VA: Gano, 1982), 13.

[3] Herman Bavinck, Our Reasonable Faith (Grand Rapids: Michigan, 1956), 31.

In all seriousness, however, I loved Systematic Theology. There is nothing more satisfying, more unsettling, more helpful, and more practical than asking the really big questions about God, man, salvation, the church, and last things. First and foremost, we studied the text of Scripture, drawing upon the resources of the entire canon to answer each question. Along the way, however, we investigated what the church fathers and the Reformers had to say on any of these doctrines, and learned to defend and apply those same doctrines. I was forced to write my first bona fide research paper. I had never written a paper in Turabian style and had no idea how to argue a thesis. I chose to argue for the divine inspiration theory of Scripture (vs. human constructivist and human response models). After having mustered all of my bibliographic, analytic, and stylistic resources, I managed to complete my paper. I received it graded the next week. At the end of the paper, Dr. Patterson devoted several paragraphs of red ink to the shortcomings of my paper, gave me a few words of encouragement, and then ended with this sentence, which I will never forget: “Mr. Ashford, we will make a real scholar of you yet, if it kills us both in the process.” Hmmm. Even though I had just been informed that (1) I was not a real scholar, and (2) that to make me one might actually kill my professor in the process, I found myself encouraged, oddly enough, that I might one day make a decent theologian. There was light at the end of the tunnel.

Since that day, many things have changed. I lived and served in Central Asia for two years, came back to the States to work on a Ph.D. in Theology, worked in student ministry as an itinerant preacher, was hired to teach intellectual history at The College at Southeastern, transferred over to the mission department, got married to Lauren and had two little girls, became a pastor/elder at The Summit Church, and finally now split my time between the theology and missiology departments at Southeastern. Throughout all of these changes, however, one of the things that did not change was the desire to do theology—the desire to know and love God, and participate with him on his mission. There is nothing more important, more rewarding, more practical, or more exciting than “doing theology.” And, in fact, every Christian is called to be a theologian (although most will not be professional theologians or systematic theologians, per se) precisely because theology is all about knowing and loving God, and joining him in his mission.

Now, I find myself teaching theology at Southeastern, and trying to explain to first and second year students how one goes about the task of theology. I have not found this to be an easy endeavor (and I’ve got a long way to go until I can do it well) but it has been a rewarding journey and fruitful in many ways.

The present blog installment is the first in an ongoing series, “Doing Theology as a Servant of Jesus,” which will deal with the task of theology, including questions such as: What is the purpose of theology? What is the relationship of theology to worship, discipleship, and mission? Why do we have confidence that we can know anything at all about God? Should our theology be affected by such things as reason, culture, experience, and church tradition? What is the relationship between theology and philosophy? Between theology and science? Between faith and learning? Who is our primary audience when we do theology? These are deep and powerful questions and, unfortunately, our treatment of them will have to be concise and in most cases surface-level. But hopefully the series somehow will be helpful in sustaining an ongoing conversation on the most exciting endeavor in all of God’s good creation: doing theology as a servant of Jesus.

The aim of this book is to pry inside the motivations of the man who gave us The Pilgrim’s Progress. As such, a 54-page biographical essay, which includes the main aspects of Bunyan’s piety, is followed by selections from Bunyan’s other writings. Thirty-one excerpts from works such as Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, The Work of Jesus Christ as an Advocate, The Jerusalem Sinner Saved, The Acceptable Sacrifice, and his sermons and letters provide a rich sampling of Bunyan’s theological and devotional emphases. These excerpts are organized by seven sections: 1. Christ Our Advocate; 2. Christ Jesus the Merciful Savior; 3. Hope for Sinners; 4. True Humility; 5. Christian Ethics; 6. The Gospel Applied; and 7. Warnings.

Within these sections, the excerpts are given in short chapters which make excellent material for devotional reading. For example, chapter 3, “Things Related to the Promises of Christ Our Advocate” excerpted from The Work of Jesus Christ as an Advocate, begins:

There are many things relating to the promises, as to the largeness and narrowness of words, as to the freeness and conditionality of them, that we are not able so well to understand, and, therefore, when Satan deals with us about them, we quickly fall to the ground before him. We often conclude that the words of the promise are too narrow and rigid to comprehend; we also truly think that the conditions of some promises do utterly shut us out from hope of justification and life. But our Advocate, who is for us with the Father, He is better acquainted with and learned in this law than to be baffled out with a bold word or two or with a subtle piece of hellish sophistication (Isa. 50:4). He knows the true purport, intent, meaning, and sense of every promise and piece of promise that is in the whole Bible. He can tell how to plead it for advantage against our accuser, and He does so (p. 67).

Phil Newton is Senior Pastor of South Woods Baptist Church in Memphis, Tennessee, and a SEBTS Ph.D. student in Applied Theology, Christian Missions with a concentration in North American Missiology. He and Dr. Duke have done us a great service by brining Bunyan’s other writings to the attention of pastors, students, teachers and any Christian seeking to grow in the knowledge of grace and truth. This book is therefore recommended for those in any of these groups.

1. Tell us a bit about yourself, your family, and your ministry.

I’ve taught at Southeastern for 15 years and have directed our Ph.D. program for over a decade. My wife Marny and I have 4 children, 3 of whom are teenagers, which is at once a great joy and a serious God-given responsibility. I love teaching, writing, and, yes, administration! I also serve as Director of Acquisitions for B&H Academic and edit the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. If you want to know more, or simply keep up, please check out my new, updated website at http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/or follow me on Twitter @akostenberger.

2. What was the impetus for writing this book? And why did you feel the need to write it?

Interpreting the Bible accurately is one of the most important responsibilities every Christian has, and is especially important for those who teach and preach God’s Word to others. Ever since I became a Christian, God has given me a burden to excel in this area and to pass on what I’ve learned to others, especially to those entrusted with the preaching ministry in our local churches. Too often, I’ve sat in the pews and have seen preachers fall short in this area. In my years of teaching biblical interpretation at the college, graduate, and doctoral levels, I’ve had a hard time finding a book that’s fully congenial to the way I teach and students best learn in my experience. Invitation to Biblical Interpretation is the product of 10 years of work in collaboration with my contributor, Dick Patterson, who is a seasoned Old Testament scholar and one of the wisest, godliest, and most erudite men I know.

3. What is the primary argument of the book?

In the book, we teach that, no matter what the type of literature you’re dealing with, you should look at the passage’s historical background, literary context, and theological message. I call this the “hermeneutical triad”—history, literature, and theology. When exploring the “literature” aspect of the triad, I recommend that students look at the canonical, genre-related, and linguistic features of the passage.

4. What, above all, do you wish for readers to know and/or do because of the book?

I would encourage them to adopt the hermeneutical triad as their basic method of study—looking at the history, literature, and theology found in a given passage. To that end, the final chapter of the book (thanks to my colleague and friend Scott Kellum) provides practical tips on how to preach from the different biblical genres and guidance on what the best biblical studies tools are and how to use them. On the Kregel website, there will also be chapter quizzes, a study chart, and a set of PowerPoints for teachers who will be using Invitation to Biblical Interpretation in the classroom.

Finally, we would like to point our readers to a sample reading of Invitation (including its endorsements) here, graciously made available by Westminster bookstore.

Unfortunately, every healthy trend sometimes includes unhealthy elements—such is to live in a fallen world. We gospel-centered types need to be reminded of our own shortcomings. In fact, there’s something profoundly gospel-centered about understanding the depths of your own sin so that you can rest anew in the good news of all that God has done through the person and work of King Jesus.

In his excellent book Gospel: Rediscovering the Power That Made Christianity Revolutionary (B&H, 2010), pastor J.D. Greear includes a helpful appendix titled “A Gospel-Centered Warning to Young Zealous Theologians.” Like me, J.D. is a thirty-something Southern Baptist who talks about the gospel all the time. He’s also the pastor of a megachurch whose membership is largely comprised of gospel-centered collegians and young professionals. J.D. also teaches adjunctively at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, a school blessed with a student body that, on the whole, very much wants to be gospel-centered. All this to say, his convicting words should be read and heeded by everyone who regularly visits the Gospel Coalition website, follows Tullian Tchividjian on Twitter, reads Jerry Bridges books, and soaks up Tim Keller sermons. You know, people like me and J.D.

J.D. and our friends at B&H Books have kindly granted me permission to make “A Gospel-Centered Warning to Young Zealous Theologians” available online. I’ve reprinted it below. I hope you find this material as helpful as I have. I also hope it encourages you to purchase a copy of Gospel and read the whole book. For those of you who are pastors or other ministry leaders, Gospel would make a great book for a church staff to read and discuss together.

“A Gospel-Centered Warning to Young Zealous Theologians”

By J.D. Greear

I’ve noticed that many of us who grasp this concept of “gospel-centeredness” can have a tendency to be more excited about the “theory” of gospel-centeredness than we are about the gospel itself. At least I’m that way. I have gotten pretty good at identifying non-gospel-centered preaching, and can pretty ably point out the shortcomings of certain ministries. The point of gospel-centeredness, however, is not the shrewd ability to critique others. The point of gospel-centeredness is to adore God and worship His grace.

Many of us who love to talk about gospel-centeredness seem to possess very little of the humility that should go along with it. You can see that in how self-promoting we are and how ungracious we are with others. It always amazes me that we can be proud because we understand the very things that should lead us to humility.

My mind has often burned hotter with the latest theological trend than it has passion for the God who gave Himself for me at the cross. Knowledge that does not lead, ultimately, to love and humility is “worthless,” Paul would say. What really counts, he says, is not knowledge by itself, but the love that our knowledge of the gospel should produce (1 Cor. 12:1–3).

One of my fears in writing this book is that it might contribute to a growing self-righteousness among younger theologians who feel like understanding gospel-centeredness makes them more special in the eyes of God (oh, the irony!) than those who can’t articulate it, and who judge everyone else by whether or not they use the same terms that they do.

Recently, I talked with a little old lady who had been my Sunday school teacher at the very traditional church in which I grew up. She said, “You know, as I lose more and more friends to heaven, I often wonder what it is really like up there and what I should be looking forward to. I know they say there are streets of gold, but that doesn’t seem to excite me very much. The one thing I really want to do is see Jesus.” This lady has never heard of John Piper and has no idea what the Gospel Coalition is, but she has been changed by the gospel. She loves Jesus, and that is the whole point of gospel-centeredness.

There are many little old ladies serving in church nurseries who may not understand how to articulate the theories of gospel-centeredness or have the ingenuity to dazzle our minds with psychological insights, cultural observations, and Christocentric interpretations of obscure Old Testament passages. Their hearts, however, burn with love for Jesus and overflow with gratefulness for His grace.

Their humble, gospel-rich love for God is worth more than all the books you or I can write on this subject.

So don’t be quick to judge them. Be humbled by them. Mastering the theory of gospel-centeredness is not the point. Loving the God of the gospel is.

See J.D. Greear, Gospel: Rediscovering the Power That Made Christianity Revolutionary (Nashville, TN: B&H Books, 2010), pp. 253–55.

“In recent days, missiologists and missionaries have become aware of ‘Insider Movements,’ which represent a new phenomenon and a new strategy in Muslim evangelism.[2] Insider Movements (IM) are movements within the Muslim world in which Muslim background believers choose to remain within Islam as a means of reaching Muslims. Some of them acknowledge Christ as their Savior only privately. IM proponents argue that this type of contextualization allows the convert to overcome significant barriers in order to incarnate like Jesus and Paul. Further, they argue that Christ does not require a convert to change his cultural identity or religion, and that the convert is free to reinterpret passages of the Qur’an so that he doesn’t have to renounce it as a whole. In addition, many IM proponents seem to see Islam as similar to OT Judaism and therefore not inherently opposed to the gospel.

We believe that IM strategy is fundamentally flawed for various reasons, but for now we will seek to show why theological method matters in adjudicating this issue. As we see it, the fundamental methodological flaw in many IM advocate’s strategy is their starting point—the existential reality of a Muslim background believer. IM proponents appear to begin with the lived existential tensions of being a convert in a Muslim context. In such environments, there are many barriers, including the strong aversion to “changing religions,” which is tantamount in those cultures to changing ones ethnic, national, and familial identity. Further these environments are also persecution-heavy, a convert faces the very real possibility of losing his job and family and perhaps even his life. Proceeding from such a difficult starting point, some IM proponents find a way to those converts.  In order to do so, some IM proponents hold to an overly privatized and reductionist view of salvation in which a person gives mental assent to Christ as Savior, but does not fully embrace or implement the doctrines of repentance and Lordship. Second, some IM proponents do not recognize the importance of the redeemed community for the working out of one’s salvation (although others, such as Kevin Higgins, strongly emphasize the role of believing communities meeting together separate from the mosque for the purpose of Christian community and discipleship). Third many IM advocates misunderstand Islam, which exists as a religion custom-built to subvert and overthrow Trinitarian Christianity. Its Aryan Jesus and its doctrines of tawhid and shirk make clear that the worst possible sin for a Muslim is to believe in the Christian doctrines of Trinity and Incarnation. In sum, these three doctrinal missteps occurred in part because of a flawed theological starting point—the existential reality of Muslim converts.

We argue that if IM proponents began with the entire canon of Scripture as their starting point, and took into account  what can be learned from church history, they would arrive at a different conclusion while still caring deeply for, and being sensitive to, the existential burdens and challenges facing converts in a Muslim context. In taking into account the entire biblical teaching, we respond to the first misstep by offering the biblical teaching concerning Christ’s Lordship (Col. 1:13-23) and the necessity of human repentance (2 Pet 3:9; Lk 14:25-33). Indeed, believers in any global religious context must turn their backs on false saviors; they must repudiate tribal gods and witch doctors; they must reject their belief that the Qur’an is God’s revelation and that Muhammad is his prophet; they must cease to worship in spirit temples and ancestral shrines; they must turn their back on the worship of sex, money, power, and other metaphorical idols. This is a fundamental tenet of Christianity. We respond to the second misstep by offering a robust ecclesiology in which we are not only saved from our sins, but are saved for discipleship in the context of the believing community, a community that clearly distinguishes itself from other communities of worship. Indeed, God’s church is a sign of the kingdom and an instrument of the kingdom in a way that individual converts never can be (especially if those converts are still identifying themselves as Muslims and attending mosque services). The body of Christ, working together, bears robust and powerful witness to Christ. We respond to the third misstep by offering the biblical teaching on idolatry (Rom 1:14-32), in which Islam must be viewed as idolatrous and antithetical to Trinitarian Christianity and to the doctrines of grace.

One should note that the persecuted believers of the New Testament faced a similar situation in which they worshiped in the midst of rival religions. In particular, they found themselves in direct opposition to the cult of Caesar. Instead of blending in with the cult, they found appropriate ways to make clear their allegiance to Christ. They baptized, gathered together for worship, and refused to recognize Caesar as a god. Theirs was a faith which was forged the midst of strong Christian churches which clearly distinguished themselves from rival religious communities, such as the cult of Caesar. Although the (commendable) aim of IM proponents is to help new converts maintain familial and communal connections, IM unintentionally undermines the role of the church in nurturing faith, building community, and bearing witness to the kingdom, and it undermines the robust nature of the doctrine of salvation, which includes Lordship, repentance, and discipleship.

In summary, a healthy theological method recognizes the entire biblical canon and brings its full teaching to bear on any situation; further it allows the canon to be provide the framework and parameters in which we craft our ministry strategies, methods, and literature, rather than allowing a lived existential scenario to provide the framework and parameters.”

[2] For two insider descriptions of IM, see Kevin Higgins, “The Key to Insider Movements: The ‘Devoted’s’ of Acts,” IJFM 21 (Winter 2004): 155, and Rebecca Lewis, “Promoting Movements to Christ within Natural Communities,” IJFM 24 (Summer 2007): 75. IM advocates note that some IM believers have indeed been killed for their bold witness.

Doug has served in overseas missions for 14 years, primarily among Central Asian Muslims with the IMB. Coleman is also author of “The Agents of Mission: Humanity,” in Theology and Practice of Missions: God, the Church, and the Nations edited by yours truly.